Andrew - he's not managing the department. He reports into ex-Microsoft boss Hugh Davies. He's doing corporate comms e.g. speaking to journos and analysts about corporate stuff. Maybe an ex-journo would be good at that?

Anonymous 2.19 - hit the nail on the head mate. All a London agency has to offer that is different from any other agency is an over-inflated monthly fee - you've heard of the global village right? Location means diddly-shit, substance and ability are the only things that matter.

Is that because you are small but difficult to define, or because you're overly pleased with your clever new moniker which you think says 'look at me, I am Hermes God of language, manipulator of words for comic end', but actually says 'I'm not a mouse, but I may still defecate in your larder'.

"Location means diddly-shit, substance and ability are the only things that matter"

If only that were true. It's not. If it was, house prices would be the same across the country. In fact they'd be more expensive in the sticks because - as we're often told - the air's cleaner there. But they're not, and it's due to supply and demand. Location, I'm afraid, does matter.

The vast majority of client companies (particularly measured by annual fees) are based in the south-east. Almost without exception they will choose a PR agency that's also based in the south-east. It stands to reason - you don't want your team travelling the length of the country to meet you.

And most of the tech press is London/South-East based too - which helps with relationship-building.

In fact the PRWeak quote - "there is a need for good PR firms with really solid tech experience in London" - surely points to the fact that clients still prefer to engage with London-based agencies? They just want to make sure they're of the best quality.

Fair-cop TWL - location does matter when it comes to property prices. But many an 'A-list' London agency has lost plenty of clients to the rural PR bumpkins.

Funny how everything not in London is considered rural, or 'in the sticks' - as if London were the only clearing in an otherwise forest covered country? - I'm sure someone will make that into an analogy of sorts.

It strikes me as an odd appointment. 3's major problem is that it has a terrible reputation amongst consumers, something it must correct if it is ever to compete with the four majors.

Don't get me wrong, I like Guy and I think he did a good job at Mobile but his experience is in the channel, mostly covering the enterprise market - which is so far removed from the needs of the business.

3's challenge is to convince the glossies and consumer affairs correspondents, i fail to understand what Guy's 'value add' is in this environment.

PR Week says he will be responsible for developing 3’s proactive comms programme (as opposed to its reactive comms programme)

And *managing the press office*.

The press office is a department. Which he will manage.

Yes, that will include preparing corporate PR material and media relations - but I can't believe for a minute that's all he will have to do. He's going to have to manage people, demonstrate how he is justifying his salary to the higher ups.

I don't doubt he's had to manage people before - but managing journalists and managing a team of in-house PR people is v. different. And given its a big corporate like 3 he'll be under pressure to demonstrate his value add.

Uhm - I wasn't aware 3 had a big in-house PR team. There's Hugh (his boss), Rachel (his counterpart in Ireland) and maybe one or two other people. 3 is owned by Hutchison Whampoa - they have a very big inhouse PR team in Hong Kong. He might have to manage their PR agencies though, agreed on that point.

Sorry, just think everyone is getting this all a bit out of context.

Still think TWL's first point about would it work the other way around is a very fair point

It's an interesting one, and no mistake. There have been a slew of in-house jobs recently where the front-runners have been tech journalists. I really see the value in having that level of media experience in the business but it strikes me that an in-house PR role is so much more management and internal reporting than media relations - that's what the agencies are for, surely. Having said that, if he's going to be in charge of a press office, the very least he'll be able to offer is some valuable advice about the best way to deal with media. It's a great move for Guy - good on him, I say.

Being a big corporate like 3 doesn't necessarily mean you have a big in-house PR department. Some much larger corporates have one dinner lady in-house giving direction. That's why so many agencies end up looking like tripe - it's down to the dinner ladies on the inside...

It will be different, but I reckon Guy's up to it otherwise I wouldn't have hired him. He has a habit of saying it like it is from his POV which is refreshing as you will all know. Long may he stay like that and long may we be able to stomach it and act on it. I am looking forward to seeing how he copes with integrating his channel knowledge with some of the more consumer fun stuff we have in store for him! A challenge I am sure he'll relish too.Hugh (the ex-Microsoft one)

Two words "Simon Rockman", ex journo and now mayor of london, no sorry that should be "Creative Experience Director" at Motorola, no sorry I'm wrong, that IS MAYOR OF LONDON http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JH9fmqVwinI

I spoke to Guy before he got the job and while he seemed very keen I think he might be in for a bit of a shock.

Journos probably find the translation to an agency the easiest - it is, as has been pointed out, more like poacher turned gamekeeper. Dealing with press releases, selling in stories, etc.

But moving in-house really is a different kettle of fish. It's much less about creating stories and so much more about having to navigate the various different fiefdoms - the Marketing Dept, the HR Dept, the Finance Dept, etc. Then there's having to manage the egos of senior management who all want to have their profile raised with the media (except for the one exec who you WANT to talk to the press and he/she is often too busy).

On top of that, at 3 (as with most of the other operators) - he's going to have to battle with the head office - who speak a different language, have a different culture, etc. And that's all before he even does a single press call.

But good luck to him - Guy's a good bloke and I think he'll muddle through.

Having worked with Guy as a journo and then hired him as a freelancer to work with a client when i moved into PR, all i can say is welcome aboard the PR boat. Won't be going to half as many parties now though...